IrisHope
03-08-2006, 07:35 AM
Anna Nicole Smith's Supreme Fight
Justices Hear Celebrity's Bid for Cut of Late Husband's Riches
By Charles Lane
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, March 1, 2006; Page A01
Anna Nicole Smith had her day in the Supreme Court yesterday. But to the palpable frustration of a media throng, she kept it low key.
Fully clothed in black, the 38-year-old former Playboy Playmate of the Year sat quietly in the back of the courtroom, listening intently to lawyers' arguments before exiting without comment through a side entrance.
Dressed in all black, Anna Nicole Smith fights her way through a throng of photographers and autograph-seekers on her way to a Supreme Court showdown in her bid to inherit her late husband's fortune. (Manuel Balce Ceneta - AP)
Millions know her as the star of her own eponymous reality show on the E! cable channel, as a columnist for the National Enquirer and as a pitchwoman for TrimSpa diet pills.
But her persona yesterday was that of the Widow Marshall, aggrieved spouse of the late Texas oil plutocrat J. Howard Marshall II -- whom she wed in 1994, when she was 26 and he was 89. He died the following year. According to Anna Nicole, J. Howard intended to give her tens of millions of dollars from his estate, but his plan was fraudulently thwarted by his son, Pierce, who wanted the old man's money for himself. She has been fighting Pierce ever since.
Sober as always as they wrestled with the legal dispute at hand, the justices nevertheless seemed aware of stepping into an epic soap opera of the kind that could have happened only in Texas. The battle between Anna Nicole and Pierce "is quite a story," as Justice Stephen G. Breyer observed.
Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. noted that the case "involved a substantial amount of assets," presumably not intending any double entendre in the case of a woman who last year stripped to the waist at the MTV Australia Video Music Awards, revealing breasts covered with the MTV logo.
For his part, Pierce, 67, says that he did nothing wrong and that his stepmother is a frustrated gold digger who lost her case in a Texas court -- and is now shopping for a favorable new forum in the federal courts as if she were at Neiman Marcus.
For the Supreme Court, the nub of the problem is that different courts have come down on opposite sides of the case. A federal bankruptcy judge and federal district judge in California both ruled for Anna Nicole, with the latter awarding her $88 million in 2002. But a Texas probate court had ruled in favor of Pierce in 2001.
The San Francisco-based federal appeals court ruled last year that the Texas court's decision should trump because matters having to do with wills and estates, or probate, as the lawyers call it, belong exclusively in the state courts. Anna Nicole's claims are just a dressed-up attempt to refight a settled will contest, the appeals court ruled.
But based on their questions and comments yesterday, the justices seem to see things Anna Nicole's way.
Her claim that Pierce interfered with what she says was J. Howard's promised gift of a sizable inheritance in return for marrying him is a separate legal claim she could, indeed, take to federal court without violating the longstanding but vaguely defined general rule against federal court intervention in probate cases, several justices suggested.
"She's saying, 'I just want some money from this guy,' " Justice David H. Souter said, cutting to the chase. "That's all she's saying. 'I'll assume the will is valid; just give me some money.' "
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/02/28/AR2006022800142.html?nav=rss_print/asection
Justices Hear Celebrity's Bid for Cut of Late Husband's Riches
By Charles Lane
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, March 1, 2006; Page A01
Anna Nicole Smith had her day in the Supreme Court yesterday. But to the palpable frustration of a media throng, she kept it low key.
Fully clothed in black, the 38-year-old former Playboy Playmate of the Year sat quietly in the back of the courtroom, listening intently to lawyers' arguments before exiting without comment through a side entrance.
Dressed in all black, Anna Nicole Smith fights her way through a throng of photographers and autograph-seekers on her way to a Supreme Court showdown in her bid to inherit her late husband's fortune. (Manuel Balce Ceneta - AP)
Millions know her as the star of her own eponymous reality show on the E! cable channel, as a columnist for the National Enquirer and as a pitchwoman for TrimSpa diet pills.
But her persona yesterday was that of the Widow Marshall, aggrieved spouse of the late Texas oil plutocrat J. Howard Marshall II -- whom she wed in 1994, when she was 26 and he was 89. He died the following year. According to Anna Nicole, J. Howard intended to give her tens of millions of dollars from his estate, but his plan was fraudulently thwarted by his son, Pierce, who wanted the old man's money for himself. She has been fighting Pierce ever since.
Sober as always as they wrestled with the legal dispute at hand, the justices nevertheless seemed aware of stepping into an epic soap opera of the kind that could have happened only in Texas. The battle between Anna Nicole and Pierce "is quite a story," as Justice Stephen G. Breyer observed.
Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. noted that the case "involved a substantial amount of assets," presumably not intending any double entendre in the case of a woman who last year stripped to the waist at the MTV Australia Video Music Awards, revealing breasts covered with the MTV logo.
For his part, Pierce, 67, says that he did nothing wrong and that his stepmother is a frustrated gold digger who lost her case in a Texas court -- and is now shopping for a favorable new forum in the federal courts as if she were at Neiman Marcus.
For the Supreme Court, the nub of the problem is that different courts have come down on opposite sides of the case. A federal bankruptcy judge and federal district judge in California both ruled for Anna Nicole, with the latter awarding her $88 million in 2002. But a Texas probate court had ruled in favor of Pierce in 2001.
The San Francisco-based federal appeals court ruled last year that the Texas court's decision should trump because matters having to do with wills and estates, or probate, as the lawyers call it, belong exclusively in the state courts. Anna Nicole's claims are just a dressed-up attempt to refight a settled will contest, the appeals court ruled.
But based on their questions and comments yesterday, the justices seem to see things Anna Nicole's way.
Her claim that Pierce interfered with what she says was J. Howard's promised gift of a sizable inheritance in return for marrying him is a separate legal claim she could, indeed, take to federal court without violating the longstanding but vaguely defined general rule against federal court intervention in probate cases, several justices suggested.
"She's saying, 'I just want some money from this guy,' " Justice David H. Souter said, cutting to the chase. "That's all she's saying. 'I'll assume the will is valid; just give me some money.' "
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/02/28/AR2006022800142.html?nav=rss_print/asection